You've (rightly) taken Hardblue to task, in the other thread, for using "corporatism" without knowing what the word means. Here, you seem to be trying to trick Peristaltor into disavowing "corporatism," on the assumption that Peristaltor shares a similar misconception about what the word means. Why? What purpose does this kind of comment serve?
I mean - if what you wanted to do was have a straightforward conversation over what "corporatism" is and what it actually entails, you wouldn't invoke the term as part of a non sequitur in response to Peristaltor's comment, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with "corporatism" as such. You would, instead, use the term "corporatism" in a way that demonstrates your familiarity with the term, shows how "corporatism" properly relates to Peristaltor's comment on "privatization," and - I dunno - explain why you reject it.
I just mean the use of mega-corps to accumulate wealth. Is the point that corporations can be small affairs, even a single person, or is there something more fundamental that I am missing?
Cripes, that seems like such an academic, old fashion conception. I would think most readers of these forums would hit on the radical flavor of 'big business', especially with the recent discussion on campaign finance and religious freedom relating to corporations.
I would think most readers of these forums would hit on the radical flavor of 'big business', especially with the recent discussion on campaign finance and religious freedom relating to corporations.
It's been heard before. To call it corporatism perverts the very real, very problematic concept of it. I suppose if there's more trollish elements who believe that we're simply looking at a base Wikipedia mentality of it, they might be confused about the real problems.
Am I mistaken in supposing that you consider this corporatism to be the opposite of what you want - that is, a focus on individualism as opposed to looking at the relationship of interest groups in society?
I don't know what definition of corporatism you're using is. If you're equating it with "corporate rule," no, it's not what I "want," either, but far too often, the results of trying to curb "corporate rule" results in increased corporatism, which is ultimately what I'm trying to avoid.
Regardless, figuring out what you're actually getting at will go a long way to figuring out the solution needed, if anything at all.
I'm trying to get a handle on the Wikipedia-explained notion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
I'm assuming this is at least close to what you originally had in mind.
That conception seems to me to be a way of relating different societal bodies (such as labor, business, etc.) in various theories of government.
And my question was whether your main criticism (as expressed in your first comments to me) is that you are not a corporatist at all, because you are a full-fledged libertarian, who does not even care to think in terms of social bodies such as 'labor' and 'business'. Instead of a corporatist, you are an individualist. Or am I still far afield from what you are talking about?
I'm assuming this is at least close to what you originally had in mind.
No, I was going with the more "merging of state and business" type that is traditionally discussed.
Going with where you're heading on it, it's almost too broad as to be valuable. which area are you promoting, exactly? The idea that people are free to organize into groups? Nothing wrong with that.
Instead of a corporatist, you are an individualist. Or am I still far afield from what you are talking about?
In the sense that my concern is with the individual and not the group, sure, I'll go with it.
No, I was going with the more "merging of state and business" type that is traditionally discussed.
Okay, I think that lit a bulb for me, and sheds light on your and Peristaltor's exchange.
Yet, it is still hard for me to think of the Republicans as really being the Party that is trying to get government out of business. You may sincerely believe that, but I think practically everybody else sees that the Republicans only speak of getting government out of business in relation to things that cost them money or mandates fair treatment toward others - regulation, equal opportunity, etc. Your idea seems to bespeak a libertarian Utopia. As a practical matter, it seems to me, the question is not whether government and business corporations will work together, but how they will work together.
Yet, it is still hard for me to think of the Republicans as really being the Party that is trying to get government out of business. You may sincerely believe that, but I think practically everybody else sees that the Republicans only speak of getting government out of business in relation to things that cost them money or mandates fair treatment toward others - regulation, equal opportunity, etc.
They're very imperfect on it, and I'll be the first in line to criticize them for it. But if you take Random Republican and Random Democrat, put them in a room and have them line up the policies regarding business, the Democrat is probably going to come out with the government more involved. The Democrats are the more corporatist of the two parties in this regard, whether you see the Republicans as sincere about it or not.
As a practical matter, it seems to me, the question is not whether government and business corporations will work together, but how they will work together.
At the moment, you're 100% right. At the same time, the fact that we're not even willing to broach the question of whether there should be any sort of collaboration of this type at all shows how far down the rabbit hole we are.
But if you take Random Republican and Random Democrat, put them in a room and have them line up the policies regarding business, the Democrat is probably going to come out with the government more involved.
What's missing in your analysis? Ah, yes. Though, I will concede, you may be correct in attributing to the Dems the tendency to form a government board of oversight or committee or branch or whatever, the GOP is no less involved in changing policy through imposition. They, however, privatize the activity as much as possible—unleashing the power of the market or some such nostrum—thus removing it from future democratic oversight. Do the people like what was done on foreign soil by our weapons? Ah, well, a contractor did that, so there's nothing that can be done, sadly. Move along.
When government is involved, democracy. When business is in charge. . . .
At the same time, the fact that we're not even willing to broach the question of whether there should be any sort of collaboration of this type at all shows how far down the rabbit hole we are.
And . . . wrong again. We are not at all down this rabbit hole. People are talking about what would be preferable . . . away from the for-profit talky news, of course.
I've been making a light study of the history of government versus business (one of the reason that Infamous Scribblers intrigued me). It seems to follow a cyclical pattern, with one generation preferring business interest oversight and another preferring civic oversight. You won't like the one we're swinging toward, according to Generations by Strauss & Howe.
Keep reaching for that insult, Jeff. It doesn't make you look petulant at all. And, criminy, get your fucking pronouns straight.
I'm not saying anything about the term "corporatism" other than to distinguish its meaning, in your vocabulary, from the common-sense (and arguably incorrect) meaning that Hardblue, by his own admission, was giving the term. I'm not trying to obscure or endorse any particular evaluative read on corporate speech or religious freedom by clarifying that distinction.
But how telling it is that I have to be the one to point your interlocutors to that distinction, since you, in your own comments, would prefer making snarky comments about your interlocutors being wrong to, say, correcting them and then having a productive conversation over what's really at issue. Which - as you've apparently conceded here - has nothing at all to do with "corporatism" and more with your amateurish read on the First Amendment.
And - you know! - let's talk about the problems with that. Because, as it turns out, I am not sure I am entirely in disagreement over strong First Amendment protections for corporate speech. I think theoretically there might be some concern that the domination of public speech by well-moneyed interests will mean a reduction of the diversity of viewpoints expressed in public discourse on a wide range of issues. You yourself are a great example of this, since, as you've gotten older and started a family, you've apparently run out of time to generate your own viewpoints on a variety of issues and instead have resorted to heavy reliance on Forbes, RedState, and other conservative media outlets and regressed to the point where you merely parrot their talking points. It's fitting that those same sources tell you not to worry about it, so it's a firmly-enclosed loop. But at the same time, I'm not sure there's much we can do about it, realistically speaking, without bulldozing over legitimate free speech concerns. We may be committed to this course, both legally speaking and practically speaking. That doesn't mean we have to be sanguine about it (which seems to be your preferred outlook on anything that logically follows from your ideological pre-commitments, regardless of their consequences or inconsistencies with other normative preferences you've articulated).
Freedom of religion is a different question, and noticing the Supreme Court's take on the issue reveals a tension in our law that you don't notice, since you tend to read your own reasoning into the Court's favorable holdings. Here's the puzzle: Citizens United acknowledged that there is such a thing as specifically corporate speech, which is to say, that there are corporate "speakers" that are distinct from the constitutive individuals of those corporate "speakers"; they have interests and points of view. Citizens United then said that you can't effectively discriminate between those speakers and natural persons, without an overwhelmingly good reason for doing so. So that's kind of the theoretical underpinning of corporate "free speech," legally speaking.
But in Hobby Lobby, the Court's analysis seemed to rely much more on the fact that Hobby Lobby's "religious freedom" was more closely connected to and derived from its owner's "religious freedom." The point in protecting Hobby Lobby's commitment to some particular religious views was to protect the owners' commitments. (That is consistent with your view of both corporate speech and religious freedom; you've always defended these concepts derivatively.) Why would they do this?
Well, to reach the result they wanted to reach, they kind of had to. Because, under our jurisprudence, one of the important requirements of any "religious freedom" argument is that a particular religious practice be founded in a "sincere" religious belief. When you're a natural person, this isn't a difficult demonstration to make. As long as your putative religious beliefs aren't patently contradicted by your statements or behavior, all that you really need to say is that you sincerely believe (say) that BC pills cause abortions, and boom! you're in religious accommodation land.
But "sincerity" becomes a much trickier question when you're talking about a corporate entity like Hobby Lobby. As many people have pointed out, many of Hobby Lobby's other policies seemed to demonstrate a lack of interest in shaping corporate policy in accordance with religious beliefs about the acceptability of facilitating abortion. Do you look to corporate charters? Board minutes? Demonstrated policies? You don't have the same issue with "corporate speech"; a corporate entity "speaks" by buying advertising, issuing PR releases, bribing contributing to politicians' campaigns, etc.
So what we have developing in our jurisprudence is actually a problematic tension shaping the First Amendment/RFRA analyses in an outcome-oriented way. If you're a natural person, your free speech claims are treated the same way a corporate entity's are. Fine. But on religious freedom, the courts now seem directed to look beyond the corporate entity, to the people behind it, because were the corporate entity subject to the same standards that a natural person were subjected to, they'd fail. Hobby Lobby and an individual Christian objecting to abortion are not actually on the same footing. Hobby Lobby, instead, is given the deference often sought by, say, the jailhouse convert who insists that his religion requires that he eat filet mignon three times a week.
And no, you don't see that problem, and you don't care about it, because for you it's always been about the individuals behind the corporate entity. The problem with that willful ignorance is that your derivative approach to corporate "free speech" would actually mean that corporate entities don't have "free speech" rights apart from the "free speech" rights of their constitutive natural persons. That would mean that the Citizens United analysis turns out to be wrong, and we have to analyze laws governing corporate speech not in terms of what corporate actors are saying, but in terms whether the individual behind them are somehow being unconstitutionally prohibited from engaging in "free speech." And when we start doing that, we start realizing that there are ways we can regulate corporate speech without infringing on anyone's First Amendment rights.
So you're in a conundrum that, I am convinced, you're just not up to the task of understanding. You endorse a view of corporate speech and religious freedom that is inconsistent with our jurisprudence, yet you also endorse that jurisprudence, which is, moreover, incoherent.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 07:58 pm (UTC)Privatization: There will be no winners except the owners.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 08:41 pm (UTC)You've (rightly) taken Hardblue to task, in the other thread, for using "corporatism" without knowing what the word means. Here, you seem to be trying to trick Peristaltor into disavowing "corporatism," on the assumption that Peristaltor shares a similar misconception about what the word means. Why? What purpose does this kind of comment serve?
I mean - if what you wanted to do was have a straightforward conversation over what "corporatism" is and what it actually entails, you wouldn't invoke the term as part of a non sequitur in response to Peristaltor's comment, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with "corporatism" as such. You would, instead, use the term "corporatism" in a way that demonstrates your familiarity with the term, shows how "corporatism" properly relates to Peristaltor's comment on "privatization," and - I dunno - explain why you reject it.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 09:10 pm (UTC)It's been heard before. To call it corporatism perverts the very real, very problematic concept of it. I suppose if there's more trollish elements who believe that we're simply looking at a base Wikipedia mentality of it, they might be confused about the real problems.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 09:24 pm (UTC)Regardless, figuring out what you're actually getting at will go a long way to figuring out the solution needed, if anything at all.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 09:33 pm (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
I'm assuming this is at least close to what you originally had in mind.
That conception seems to me to be a way of relating different societal bodies (such as labor, business, etc.) in various theories of government.
And my question was whether your main criticism (as expressed in your first comments to me) is that you are not a corporatist at all, because you are a full-fledged libertarian, who does not even care to think in terms of social bodies such as 'labor' and 'business'. Instead of a corporatist, you are an individualist. Or am I still far afield from what you are talking about?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 09:39 pm (UTC)No, I was going with the more "merging of state and business" type that is traditionally discussed.
Going with where you're heading on it, it's almost too broad as to be valuable. which area are you promoting, exactly? The idea that people are free to organize into groups? Nothing wrong with that.
Instead of a corporatist, you are an individualist. Or am I still far afield from what you are talking about?
In the sense that my concern is with the individual and not the group, sure, I'll go with it.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 09:51 pm (UTC)Okay, I think that lit a bulb for me, and sheds light on your and Peristaltor's exchange.
Yet, it is still hard for me to think of the Republicans as really being the Party that is trying to get government out of business. You may sincerely believe that, but I think practically everybody else sees that the Republicans only speak of getting government out of business in relation to things that cost them money or mandates fair treatment toward others - regulation, equal opportunity, etc. Your idea seems to bespeak a libertarian Utopia. As a practical matter, it seems to me, the question is not whether government and business corporations will work together, but how they will work together.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 09:57 pm (UTC)They're very imperfect on it, and I'll be the first in line to criticize them for it. But if you take Random Republican and Random Democrat, put them in a room and have them line up the policies regarding business, the Democrat is probably going to come out with the government more involved. The Democrats are the more corporatist of the two parties in this regard, whether you see the Republicans as sincere about it or not.
As a practical matter, it seems to me, the question is not whether government and business corporations will work together, but how they will work together.
At the moment, you're 100% right. At the same time, the fact that we're not even willing to broach the question of whether there should be any sort of collaboration of this type at all shows how far down the rabbit hole we are.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 05:57 am (UTC)What's missing in your analysis? Ah, yes. Though, I will concede, you may be correct in attributing to the Dems the tendency to form a government board of oversight or committee or branch or whatever, the GOP is no less involved in changing policy through imposition. They, however, privatize the activity as much as possible—unleashing the power of the market or some such nostrum—thus removing it from future democratic oversight. Do the people like what was done on foreign soil by our weapons? Ah, well, a contractor did that, so there's nothing that can be done, sadly. Move along.
When government is involved, democracy. When business is in charge. . . .
At the same time, the fact that we're not even willing to broach the question of whether there should be any sort of collaboration of this type at all shows how far down the rabbit hole we are.
And . . . wrong again. We are not at all down this rabbit hole. People are talking about what would be preferable . . . away from the for-profit talky news, of course.
I've been making a light study of the history of government versus business (one of the reason that Infamous Scribblers intrigued me). It seems to follow a cyclical pattern, with one generation preferring business interest oversight and another preferring civic oversight. You won't like the one we're swinging toward, according to Generations by Strauss & Howe.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 11:43 am (UTC)And since no one is looking for business to be in charge, I don't know what point you're making here.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 07:06 pm (UTC). . . no one looks to see who is committing the wrong. What a beautiful system of obfuscation and denial!
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 10:01 pm (UTC)I'm not saying anything about the term "corporatism" other than to distinguish its meaning, in your vocabulary, from the common-sense (and arguably incorrect) meaning that Hardblue, by his own admission, was giving the term. I'm not trying to obscure or endorse any particular evaluative read on corporate speech or religious freedom by clarifying that distinction.
But how telling it is that I have to be the one to point your interlocutors to that distinction, since you, in your own comments, would prefer making snarky comments about your interlocutors being wrong to, say, correcting them and then having a productive conversation over what's really at issue. Which - as you've apparently conceded here - has nothing at all to do with "corporatism" and more with your amateurish read on the First Amendment.
And - you know! - let's talk about the problems with that. Because, as it turns out, I am not sure I am entirely in disagreement over strong First Amendment protections for corporate speech. I think theoretically there might be some concern that the domination of public speech by well-moneyed interests will mean a reduction of the diversity of viewpoints expressed in public discourse on a wide range of issues. You yourself are a great example of this, since, as you've gotten older and started a family, you've apparently run out of time to generate your own viewpoints on a variety of issues and instead have resorted to heavy reliance on Forbes, RedState, and other conservative media outlets and regressed to the point where you merely parrot their talking points. It's fitting that those same sources tell you not to worry about it, so it's a firmly-enclosed loop. But at the same time, I'm not sure there's much we can do about it, realistically speaking, without bulldozing over legitimate free speech concerns. We may be committed to this course, both legally speaking and practically speaking. That doesn't mean we have to be sanguine about it (which seems to be your preferred outlook on anything that logically follows from your ideological pre-commitments, regardless of their consequences or inconsistencies with other normative preferences you've articulated).
Freedom of religion is a different question, and noticing the Supreme Court's take on the issue reveals a tension in our law that you don't notice, since you tend to read your own reasoning into the Court's favorable holdings. Here's the puzzle: Citizens United acknowledged that there is such a thing as specifically corporate speech, which is to say, that there are corporate "speakers" that are distinct from the constitutive individuals of those corporate "speakers"; they have interests and points of view. Citizens United then said that you can't effectively discriminate between those speakers and natural persons, without an overwhelmingly good reason for doing so. So that's kind of the theoretical underpinning of corporate "free speech," legally speaking.
But in Hobby Lobby, the Court's analysis seemed to rely much more on the fact that Hobby Lobby's "religious freedom" was more closely connected to and derived from its owner's "religious freedom." The point in protecting Hobby Lobby's commitment to some particular religious views was to protect the owners' commitments. (That is consistent with your view of both corporate speech and religious freedom; you've always defended these concepts derivatively.) Why would they do this?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 10:01 pm (UTC)But "sincerity" becomes a much trickier question when you're talking about a corporate entity like Hobby Lobby. As many people have pointed out, many of Hobby Lobby's other policies seemed to demonstrate a lack of interest in shaping corporate policy in accordance with religious beliefs about the acceptability of facilitating abortion. Do you look to corporate charters? Board minutes? Demonstrated policies? You don't have the same issue with "corporate speech"; a corporate entity "speaks" by buying advertising, issuing PR releases,
bribingcontributing to politicians' campaigns, etc.So what we have developing in our jurisprudence is actually a problematic tension shaping the First Amendment/RFRA analyses in an outcome-oriented way. If you're a natural person, your free speech claims are treated the same way a corporate entity's are. Fine. But on religious freedom, the courts now seem directed to look beyond the corporate entity, to the people behind it, because were the corporate entity subject to the same standards that a natural person were subjected to, they'd fail. Hobby Lobby and an individual Christian objecting to abortion are not actually on the same footing. Hobby Lobby, instead, is given the deference often sought by, say, the jailhouse convert who insists that his religion requires that he eat filet mignon three times a week.
And no, you don't see that problem, and you don't care about it, because for you it's always been about the individuals behind the corporate entity. The problem with that willful ignorance is that your derivative approach to corporate "free speech" would actually mean that corporate entities don't have "free speech" rights apart from the "free speech" rights of their constitutive natural persons. That would mean that the Citizens United analysis turns out to be wrong, and we have to analyze laws governing corporate speech not in terms of what corporate actors are saying, but in terms whether the individual behind them are somehow being unconstitutionally prohibited from engaging in "free speech." And when we start doing that, we start realizing that there are ways we can regulate corporate speech without infringing on anyone's First Amendment rights.
So you're in a conundrum that, I am convinced, you're just not up to the task of understanding. You endorse a view of corporate speech and religious freedom that is inconsistent with our jurisprudence, yet you also endorse that jurisprudence, which is, moreover, incoherent.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 05:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 07:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 09:36 pm (UTC)